IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against conviction, Appellate Court has duty to itself appreciate evidence and arrive at an independent finding based of appraisal of such evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J. - The appellant alongwith four absconding accused Man Singh, Babu Lal, Arjan and a son-in-law of Ganesh was charge-sheeted for committing the murder of Dullen Maddi, wife of PW 2, Murka Maddi on 31.8.1982 at about 8.00 p.m. It is alleged by the prosecution that after causing injuries to the deceased, the assailants buried her dead body with the intention of screening the offenders from legal consequences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and RI for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Se9tion 201 IPC. The substantive sentences were however, directed to run concurrently. His appeal before the High Court of Calcutta against conviction and sentences failed on 31.7.1990. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that the villagers of Dhupchindanga in Burdwan District were under an impression that the deceased was a witch and was responsible for the death of the infant daughter of one of the absconding accused, Man Singh. It is alleged that on 31.8.1982 at about 8.00 p.m., while PW 2 Murka Maddi, his three sons including Sita Ram Maddi, PW 8 and a daughter alongwith his wife Dullen Maddi (deceased) were sitting inside their house, Man Singh alongwith another person and Babu Lal (the absconding accused) entered their house and gave beating to PW 2 and his wife Dullen and then dragged her away to Man Singh's house. While Dullen was being assaulted in her house, PW 2 and PW 8 fled away. The appellant and one of the absconding accused were present at the house of Man Singh and all of them took part in assaulting the deceased at the house of Man Singh. PW 2 and PW 8 went to the police station and lodged a report on 1.9.1982 at about 1030 hrs. The report Ex. 7 was entered in the general diary by the Station House Officer, PW 10. The statement, however, was eryptic. It did not disclose the mimes of the accused even. Subsequently, when PW 14 took over the investigation, he recorded the statement of PW 2 on 1.9.1982 at about 1235 hrs and on the basis of that statement, a formal FIR was registered. The body of Dullen (deceased) was exhumed on 2.9.1982 by the SI in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and inquest proceedings were held. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The SI during the investigation seized lathis alleged to have been used in the assault of Dullen from the house of Man Singh and Ganesh.

3. Before the Trial Court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that had PW 8, Sitaram, son of the deceased and PW 2 husband of the deceased been actually eye witnesses and had witnessed the occurrence, the statement Ex. 7 made by them to PW 10, which was recorded in the general diary would not have been so eryptic and the name of the appellant and others, who were admittedly known to them would have found a mention therein. It was also submitted that the conduct of Murka Maddi, PW 2, the husband of the deceased, who made no efforts either to save his wife from being assaulted in his very presence or from being forcibly dragged from his house also creates a doubt about his presence at the time of the occurrence. Both the submissions were rejected by the Trial Court and in our opinion rightly and for cogent reasons with which we agree.

4. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. However, the manner in which the High Court dealt with the appeal leaves much to be desired. The High Court did not consider much less discuss the evidence at all and after a narration of the prosecution case observed:

"The learned Sessions Judge had an opportunity of watching the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses deposing before him and his assessment of the evidence in